Malik NADEEM ZAMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Malik Nadeem Zaman against his conviction for multiple murders of his close relations, including his father, real sisters, and nephew, committed inside his own house. Both the trial court and the high court concurrently found the petitioner guilty after a thorough reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts suffered from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment was unexceptionable, as the evidence thoroughly excluded any probability of the petitioner's innocence, and his mere plea of false involvement without any defense evidence held no substance. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent convictions.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the high court when the evidence has been thoroughly reappraised?
- Does a mere plea of false involvement and claim of innocence without leading defense evidence suffice to overturn a murder conviction?
ORDER
1. ' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been found guilty for committing multiple murders in his own house of his close relations i.e, father Malik Sher Zaman, real sisters Shagufta and Darkhshan including nephew Awais, concurrently by both the learned Courts i.e, the learned trial Court and the learned High Court. In this case, threadbare reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence has been made by the learned trial Court, as well as the same has been scanned carefully and reappraised by the learned High Court in its true perspective. All the aspects and circumstances of the case has been thoroughly thrashed out, which excluded all probabilities and possibilities of the innocence of the petitioner, who simply took the plea for having been falsely involved and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led.
2. The impugned judgment is unexceptionable and does not suffer from any infirmity legal or factual so as to call for any interference by this Court. This petition having without any substance is dismissed. Leave refused.